A Euro 5 or Euro 6 Diesel set up properly can have higher particle emissions than a gasoline engine and has about 20 percent lower CO2 emissions. It will also have a lower fuel consumption, up to thirty percent, and will last longer.
Flyer59 wrote:
lower fuel consumption, up to thirty percent
It depends on whether you count fuel consumption by volume, or by mass or thermal content. The latter would IMO be more fair, and given that diesel fuel has about 10% more thermal content and mass per volume than gasoline, the efficiency advantage of the diesel is only 20% (which matches the CO2 emission).
Flyer59 wrote:
will last longer
I somehow doubt this, given Achim’s experience with marine diesels 
LeSving wrote:
It will probably last until we get tons and tons of toxic batteries nobody knows what to do with
Modern electric vehicle batteries are all lithium ion types and are not toxic. The materials are also generally recyclable too.
alioth wrote:
are not toxic
Please make that “no toxicity has as yet been demonstrated” . I feel sure they will, eventually.
ortac wrote:
Archie wrote:
but truth of the matter is that Cont and Lyc engines have become extremely reliable over the past decades
I beg to differ. On the Cessna Pilot site the big discussion is what crap workmanship these aircraft manufactures (in my case Cont.) is putting out.
It seems on that site people are bitching and we do compare notes.
While none of these things that have happened to me was catastrophic it could have been if left unattended.
1 Fuel pump that was defective. How did it leave the factory like that?
2 Second fuel pump as a replacement had the wrong impeller installed.
3 1. Hydraulic Lifter after 600 hours had minor spalding improper harness of lifter face. That was found as a Preventive maintenance check.
4 #5 Cyl is being pulled due to high oil consumption. Will see what we find. Hoping its a stuck oil oil ring only.
Currently others on CPA have reported very poorly mated valve seats brand new from the factory. To the point that they are sending cyl out to have the valve seats reground.
Within the past 10 years cyl head cracks. Within 20 yrs crankshaft cracks and failures.
So I dont think the quality of the products is the same now than it was 40 yrs ago. Most shops I talk to say the same thing.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
aterials are also generally recyclable too.alioth
Andreas IOM
Jan_Olieslagers 28-Oct-15 17:05 #84
alioth wrote:
are not toxic
I’m sure some of the solvents are mildly to moderately toxic – Lithium, Carbon not so much. But the real question is whether their manufacture/recycling discharges toxic chemicals into the environment. In normal use, they’re very well sealed.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
Please make that “no toxicity has as yet been demonstrated” . I feel sure they will, eventually.
You can find anything to be toxic. But lithium ion chemistry batteries don’t contain the usual nasties – cadmium, mercury, lead etc.
The only way we’re going to have a society with nothing ever toxic needing to be handled is to give up industrial society altogether and go back to farming with horses. But all the lithium batteries in the world will not have a tiny fraction of the toxicity or do a tiny fraction of the damage that the Macondo spill in the Gulf of Mexico did.
alioth wrote:
But all the lithium batteries in the world will not have a tiny fraction of the toxicity or do a tiny fraction of the damage that the Macondo spill in the Gulf of Mexico did.
Except that lithium batteries don’t “produce” any energy, they just store it. You still have to charge them with electricity from other plants, such as fossil or nuclear fuel fired generating plants. So in addition to the existing risks, you get new ones for free Methinks the whole EV frenzy is mostly about shifting the pollution from the cities to somewhere less people care.
Maybe one day renewables will play a significant role, but Solar has an abysmally bad EROI (OTOH Wind and Geothermal looks quite good)
The Solar PV subsidy has just dropped here in the UK from 6p/kWh to 1p which is going to practically kill the PV subsidy farming fake PV business.
tomjnx wrote:
Methinks the whole EV frenzy is mostly about shifting the pollution from the cities to somewhere less people care.
Not entirely. Norway is 99% hydropower, no pollution at all, last for ever, as long as it rains. The average energy consumption driving a car is tiny. If everyone in Norway transferred to EV, it would hardly make a dent in the total electric energy consumption. People use much more energy heating water for their daily shower. A place like Germany has lots more people and cars, but compared with the total energy consumption in Germany as a whole, car energy consumption is equally tiny. It is also much easier, cheaper and effective to clean one single large power plant, than to clean the micro-power plant in each and every car. EV really is a no brainer, especially with Lithium ion which do not pollute 
(I really thought it did though). In places with some sun (Spain and so on), a little solar panel on the roof of the car parking would charge the batteries plenty for daily use. Besides, nuclear plants doesn’t pollute either, they just scare people.
